Studying team shared mental models

ACM International Conference Proceeding Series

Volumn 363, Issue , 2008, Pages 41-48

  Carpenter, Sandra ^a   Fortune, Julie L ^d   Delugach, Harry S ^b   Etzkorn, Letha H ^b   Utley, Dawn R ^c   Farrington, Phillip A ^c   Virani, Shamsnaz ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA IN HUNTSVILLE   (United States)

^b University of Alabama in Huntsville   (United States)

^c UAH Campus   (United States)

^d Quality System Management Inc

Author keywords

conceptual graphs; mental models; shared mental models; taskwork; team communication; team effectiveness; team performance; teamwork

Indexed keywords

CONCEPTUAL GRAPH; MENTAL MODEL; SHARED MENTAL MODEL; TEAM COMMUNICATION; TEAM EFFECTIVENESS; TEAM PERFORMANCE;

COMMUNICATION; MANAGEMENT;

MULTI AGENT SYSTEMS;

EID: 77953852710     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: 10.1145/1479190.1479197     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (53)

1. Schoop, M., de Moor, A., Dietz, J.L. The pragmatic web: A manifesto. Comm. ACM, 49 (2006), pp. 75-76.
2. Buckingham-Shum, S., Lind, M., Weigand, H., eds., Proc. 2nd Intl. Conference on Pragmatic Web. ACM, 2007.
3. Schoop, M., de Moor, A., Dietz, J., eds., Proc. 1st Intl. Conference on Pragmatic Web. Gesellschaft für Informatik, Bonn, Germany, 2006.
4. Cannon-Bowers, J.A., Salas, E. Reflections on shared cognition. Jour. of Organizational Behavior, 22 (2001), pp. 195-202.
5. Wheelan, S.A. Group processes: a developmental perspective. Allyn and Bacon, 1994.
6. Kayser, T.A. Mining group gold: How to cash in on the collaborative brain power of a group. Serif Publishing, El Segundo, CA, USA, 1990.
7. 2005 industry report: Analysis of employer-sponsored training in the united states. Training Magazine (2005),.
8. Tuckman, B.W. Developmental sequences in small groups. Psychological Bulletin, 63 (1965), pp. 384-399.
9. Benfield, M.P.J. Determining the ability of the tuckman group development model to explain team development in science and engineering organizations (2005), Ph.D. thesis, Dept. of Industrial and System Engr. and Engr. Management, Univ. of Alabama in Huntsville.
10. Knight, P.J. The tuckman team development model's ability to explain small short-duration technical team development as evidenced by DAU teams (2006), Ph.D. thesis, Dept. of Industrial and System Engr. and Engr. Management, Univ. of Alabama in Huntsville, Univ. of Alabama in Huntsville.
11. Vigil, S.L. A longitudinal study of multidisciplinary engineering design teams using wheelen's integrated model of group development (2008), Ph.D. thesis, Dept. of Industrial and System Engr. and Engr. Management, Univ. of Alabama in Huntsville, Univ. of Alabama in Huntsville.
12. Hess, K.P., Entin, E.E., Hess, S.M., et al. Building adaptive organizations: A bridge from basic research to operational exercises. Proceedings of the 2000 Command and Control Research & Technology Symposium (2000), pp. 26-28.
13. Kiesler, S., Cummings, J.N. What do we know about proximity and distance in work groups? A legacy of research. Distributed Work, 1 (2002), pp. 57-80.
14. Fiore, S.M., Salas, E., Cuevas, H.M., et al. Distributed coordination space: Toward a theory of distributed team process and performance. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 4 (2003), pp. 340-364.
15. Dirks, K.T. The effects of interpersonal trust on work group performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84 (1999), pp. 445-455.
16. Mortensen, M., Hinds, P.J. Conflict and shared identity in geographically distributed teams. International Journal of Conflict Management, 12 (2001), pp. 212-238. (Pubitemid 33679251)
17. Armstrong, D.J., Cole, P. Managing distances and differences in geographically distributed work groups. Distributed Work (2002), pp. 167-186.
18. Espinosa, A., Cadiz, J., Rico-Gutierrez, L., et al. Coming to the wrong decision quickly: Why awareness tools must be matched with appropriate tasks. Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems (2000), pp. 392-399.
19. Larson, C.E., LaFasto, F.M.J. Teamwork: What must go right, what can go wrong. Sage, Newberry Park, CA USA, 1989.
20. Rentsch, J.R., Klimoski, R.J. Why do 'great minds' think alike?: Antecedents of team member schema agreement. Jour. Organizational Behavior, 22 (2001), pp. 107-120.
21. Castano, E., Yzerbyt, V., Paladino, M., et al. I belong, therefore, I exist: Ingroup identification, ingroup entitativity, and ingroup bias. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28 (2002), pp. 135-143.
22. Carpenter, S.L., Radhakrishnan, P. The relation between allocentrism and perceptions of in-groups. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28 (2002), pp. 1528-1537.
23. Noordzij, M., Postma, A. Categorical and metric distance information in mental representations derived from route and survey descriptions. Psychological Research, 69 (2005), pp. 221-232. (Pubitemid 40105992)
24. Banks, A.P., Millward, L.J. Running shared mental models as a distributed cognitive process. British Journal of Psychology, 91 (2000), pp. 513-531.
25. Peterson, E., Mitchell, T.R., Thompson, L., et al. Collective efficacy and aspects of shared mental models as predictors of performance over time in work groups. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 3 (2000), pp. 296-316.
26. van Ginkel, W.P., van Knippenberg, D. Group information elaboration and group decision making: The role of shared task representations. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 105 (2008), pp. 82-97.
27. Campbell, D.T. Common fate, similarity, and other indices of the status of aggregates of persons as social entities. Behavioral Science, 3 (1958), pp. 14-25.
28. Hamilton D.L., Sherman S.J., Castelli L. A group by any other name: The role of entitativity in group perception. In European Review of Social Psychology. Stroebe, W., Hewstone, M., editors. Chichester, U.K.: Wiley; 2002. p. 139-66.
29. Brewer, M.B., Weber, J.G., Carini, B. Person memory in intergroup contexts: Categorization versus individuation. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 69 (1995), pp. 29-40.
30. Yzerbyt, V.Y., Rogier, A., Fiske, S.T. Group entitativity and social attribution: On translating situational constraints into stereotypes. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 24 (1998), pp. 1089-1103.
31. Halfhill, T.R., Nielsen, T.M. Quantifying the "softer side" of management education: An example using teamwork competencies. Journal of Management Education, 31 (2007), pp. 64-80.
32. Fortune J. Team progress checksheet: Is it progress or performance?. In Proceedings of the 2003 ASEM National Conference. St. Louis, MO (2003), pp. 475-478.
33. Fortune J., Utley D. Team progress checksheet: A study continuation. In Proceedings of the 2004 ASEM National Conference. Washington DC, USA (2004), pp. 1-8.
34. Pierce, J.L., Gardner, D.G., Cummings, L.L., et al. Organization based self-esteem: Construct definition, measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 32 (1989), pp. 622-648.
35. Pierce, J.L., Gardner, D.G. Self-Esteem within the work and organizational context: A review of the organization-based self-esteem literature. Journal of Management Education, 30 (2004), pp. 591-622.
36. Smith, E.R., Seger, C.R., Mackie, D.M. Can emotions be truly group level? Evidence regarding four conceptual criteria. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93 (2007), pp. 431-446.
37. Magee, J.C., Tiedens, L.Z. Emotional ties that bind: The valence and consistency of group emotion in reference of cohesiveness and common fate. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32 (2006), pp. 1703-1715.
38. Parkinson, B., Fischer, A.H., Manstead, A.S.R. Emotion in social relations: Cultural, group, and interpersonal processes. Psychology Press, New York, 2005.
39. Doosje, B., Ellemers, N., Spears, R. Perceived intragroup variability as a function of group status and identification. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 31 (2005), pp. 410-436.
40. Carpenter, S.L., Delugach, H.S., Etzkorn, L.H., et al. A knowledge modeling approach to evaluating student essays in engineering courses. Jour. of Engr. Education, 96 (2007), pp. 227-239.
41. Buckingham-Shum S. Cohere: Towards web 2.0 argumentation. In 2nd Intl. Conf. on Computational Models of Argument (COMMA '08). (2008), pp. 97-108.
42. Schneider, W. A study of teamwork in a government agency (2001), Dept of Industrial and Systems Engineering and Engineering Management, Univ. of Alabama in Huntsville.
43. Cuevas, H.M., Fiore, S.M., Oser, R.L. Scaffolding cognitive and metacognitive processes in low verbal ability learners: Use of diagrams in computerbased training environments. Instructional Science, 30 (2002), pp. 433-464.
44. Rowe, A.L., Cooke, N.J. Measuring mental models: Choosing the right tools for the job. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 6 (1995), pp. 243-262.
45. Sowa, J.F. Conceptual Structures: Information Processing in Mind and Machine. Addison-Wesley, Reading, Mass, 1984.
46. Novak, J.D., Gowin, D.B. Learning How to Learn. Cambridge University Press, 1984.
47. Buzan, T., Buzan, B. The Mind Map Book: How to Use Radiant Thinking to Maximize Your Brain's Untapped Potential. Plume, 1996.
48. Etzkorn, L.H., Davis, C.G. Automatically identifying reusable object-oriented legacy code. IEEE Computer, 30 (1997), pp. 66-71.
49. Yao, H., Etzkorn, L., Virani, S. Automated classification and retrieval of reusable software components. Jour. Amer. Society for Information Science and Technology, 49 (2008), pp. 613-627.
50. Delugach H.S.. 2003, http://projects.sourceforge.net/charger, accessed 13 August 2008.
51. Genest D.. 2003, http://sourceforge.net/projects/cogitant/, accessed 18 August 2008.
52. ISO/IEC. 2007, http://standards.iso.org/ittf/PubliclyAvailableStandards/ c039175-ISO-IEC-24707-2007(E).zip, accessed 13 August 2008.
53. Gaertner, L., Schopler, J. Perceived ingroup entitativity and intergroup bias: An interconnection of self and others. European Journal of Social Psychology, 28 (1998), pp. 963-980.